Catholics Call on President-Elect Obama to Rescind Refusal Clause Regulation

[Cancel3]

Ahh .. excuse me, but your God only exists in your mind and the minds of people who believe as you do. NOWHERE else does your God exist.

In a society of many religions, your God has no authority over a government that must create equality, or the resemblance of equality, for all religions and people.

You are free to practice your faith .. in other words a belief in something you do not know to be true .. among people who believe as you do and when it does not interfere with people who don't.

It's real simple.

So you think, since you do not believe, that no one should be able to decide what they believe or disbelieve?

And you think that people in the medical field should all be required to perform whatever procedures are legal, no matter what their beliefs are?

 

[Good Luck]

does this mean that religious people are above the law - i seem to remember "render unto god that which is god's and unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"

It's pathetic how people who have no belief in God try to tell the religious what their religion says. Jesus answer to the Pharasees' question about taxation does not in any way state that He expects people to ignore God's law in favor of secular law.

it is a difficult problem no matter which side you are on

but, the law of the land is currently on the side of the pro-choice not the pro-life

And being legal, makes it right?

follow the constitution and the law or change it - or move to a nation with a christian theocracy

I am involved in the processs of trying to change the law.

i do not deny yours or anyone else's beliefs as long as you do not try to break the law or impose your beliefs on me

Bullshit, you lying hypocrit. You are stating, quite unequivocally, that religious people in professions that interact with you should be forced to accomodate YOUR beliefs if there is a conflict between your beliefs and their religious beliefs.

 

[Good Luck]

Ahh .. excuse me, but your God only exists in your mind and the minds of people who believe as you do. NOWHERE else does your God exist.

In a society of many religions, your God has no authority over a government that must create equality, or the resemblance of equality, for all religions and people.

You are free to practice your faith .. in other words a belief in something you do not know to be true .. among people who believe as you do and when it does not interfere with people who don't.

It's real simple.

The quintessential example of the modern liberal atheists view of religious freedom: keep it behind closed doors and you you have our "permission" to believe what you want. Interact with an atheist, you must accommodate the atheists (dis)belief.

How very "tolerant" of you.

God is real. You cannot prove otherwise, and your denial of Him does not change anything other than your relationship with He who created you. I KNOW this to be true. You have zero concept of religious belief. I may not be able to PROVE what I know to a secularist such as yourself, but that does not mean I do not know it to be true.


But try putting it on the other foot. "Atheists may deny God (ie" practice their faith in a belief they cannot prove to be true)...among people who believe as they do and when it does not interfere with people who don't."

 

[Good Luck]

Weren't you a military man? What happened to "thou shalt not kill"?

How much do you know of the Bible? Not much going by such a simplistic question.

The proscription is against murder. God Himself supported Israel in many wars against their enemies after He gave Israel His Commandments. He also allowed for the death penalty when He added the Mosaic laws. (see Leviticus)

But killing - even when justified - does weight heavy on the soul.

 

[charver]

How much do you know of the Bible? Not much going by such a simplistic question.

The proscription is against murder. God Himself supported Israel in many wars against their enemies after He gave Israel His Commandments. He also allowed for the death penalty when He added the Mosaic laws. (see Leviticus)

But killing - even when justified - does weight heavy on the soul.

I usually try to be quite simplistic when dealing with people who essentially boil everything down to - there is a magic man in the sky wot did everyfink. The Bible probably tells me i shouldn't do that but then other books tell me not to trust witches bearing poisoned apples and i don't tend to pay much heed to those either.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

why?

Because as a medical practitioner they have an ethical obligation to provide all available information to their patients. They don't have to provide those services if it violates their personal beliefs but they do have the ethical obligation to provide that information.

The problem the Bush administrations rule on this will cause is that it conflicts with AMA ethical guidelines.

 

[Bonestorm]

Then I agree that the regulation is wrong. They should absolutely have the right to dictate terms of employment in that regards. The doctors can then choose to work there or to work somewhere else depending on personal beliefs.

amendment... I will state this though... if it is a government run facility, then they do not have the same right of policy.

Why the amendment? People going to government run health clinics usually do so because they have no other option. It is the very place where such a regulation is most pernicious.

Basically, my view is that Title VII protects religious folks sufficiently such that they cannot be discriminated against unless doing so places an undue burden on the employer. That is, where 40% of the employers services are contraceptive services the employer shouldn't be required to hire doctors that don't provide contraceptive services.

 

[Damocles]

Why the amendment? People going to government run health clinics usually do so because they have no other option. It is the very place where such a regulation is most pernicious.

Basically, my view is that Title VII protects religious folks sufficiently such that they cannot be discriminated against unless doing so places an undue burden on the employer. That is, where 40% of the employers services are contraceptive services the employer shouldn't be required to hire doctors that don't provide contraceptive services.

I think he was saying that the government facilities would not have the right to refuse services as private facilities might.

 

[Good Luck]

I usually try to be quite simplistic when dealing with people who essentially boil everything down to - there is a magic man in the sky wot did everyfink. The Bible probably tells me i shouldn't do that but then other books tell me not to trust witches bearing poisoned apples and i don't tend to pay much heed to those either.

If you do not believe in God, that is your affair. But don't then pretend you have any hope of understanding the basics of religious beliefs - especially if you want to use those basics to challenge one who does understand the basics. The teachings of the bible are only revealed to those willing to accept God into their hearts. He is not about to reveal His mysteries to those who deny Him.

As such, it is plain stupid to try to use the teachings of the Bible to argue against the religious. If you insist on being an atheist, best stick to secular arguments.

And whether you want to believe or not, may you be blessed with the Peace and Love of Christ this Christmas Day.

 

[charver]

If you do not believe in God, that is your affair. But don't then pretend you have any hope of understanding the basics of religious beliefs - especially if you want to use those basics to challenge one who does understand the basics. The teachings of the bible are only revealed to those willing to accept God into their hearts. He is not about to reveal His mysteries to those who deny Him.

As such, it is plain stupid to try to use the teachings of the Bible to argue against the religious. If you insist on being an atheist, best stick to secular arguments.

And whether you want to believe or not, may you be blessed with the Peace and Love of Christ this Christmas Day.

Yes, that's right, it is plain stupid to use the Bible to argue anything seeing as it is a mass of contradictory statements adapted from previous mythologies (that'll be the old testament there, you know the one that doesn't really apply to Christians but which is invoked, by them in a rather selective manner) or amalgamations of secondary sources of dubious authentication (that'll be the New Testament there, slightly more palatable to the modern mind but still a mass of crazy talk, which would get you sectioned by any self respecting psychiatrist nowadays)

Perhaps if i had "faith" then i too could use a book to justify my own actions or excuse my faults. Unfortunately i don't and blame myself for my faults and congratulate myself for my successes. Good Luck with that (see what i did there, eh?)

If you insist on being a believer, best stick to imaginary arguments because that's where it belongs.

And Happy Jesus' Birthday BTW.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Doctors take an oath to protect life and to save it, abortion destroys life. I can't see how a doctor who believes abortion is wrong, could be forced by government to perform them. If we are talking about birth control, I think that is a different matter. I do believe doctors should not be allowed to 'opt out' of prescribing birth control, based on their personal beliefs. However, I also think any service professional should have the right of choice in who they provide services to.

Birth control makes a mockery of my ability to make babies.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

If you do not believe in God, that is your affair. But don't then pretend you have any hope of understanding the basics of religious beliefs - especially if you want to use those basics to challenge one who does understand the basics. The teachings of the bible are only revealed to those willing to accept God into their hearts. He is not about to reveal His mysteries to those who deny him.

As such, it is plain stupid to try to use the teachings of the Bible to argue against the religious. If you insist on being an atheist, best stick to secular arguments.

And whether you want to believe or not, may you be blessed with the Peace and Love of Christ this Christmas Day.

Oh I've got it now. I can't use logic or common sense against your crazy, asinine, delusional beliefs because a magic mensa man instills you with special knowledge he denies me.

Gotcha.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I think the one most annoying Christian logical fallacy is special pleading, like Good Luck just tried to pull out. YOUR NOT A CHRISTIAN AND THEREFORE ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND! I SHALL GO CRY AND BE EMO NOW!

Great logic there.

 

[Good Luck]

Yes, that's right, it is plain stupid to use the Bible to argue anything seeing as it is a mass of contradictory statements adapted from previous mythologies (that'll be the old testament there, you know the one that doesn't really apply to Christians but which is invoked, by them in a rather selective manner) or amalgamations of secondary sources of dubious authentication (that'll be the New Testament there, slightly more palatable to the modern mind but still a mass of crazy talk, which would get you sectioned by any self respecting psychiatrist nowadays)

Perhaps if i had "faith" then i too could use a book to justify my own actions or excuse my faults. Unfortunately i don't and blame myself for my faults and congratulate myself for my successes. Good Luck with that (see what i did there, eh?)

If you insist on being a believer, best stick to imaginary arguments because that's where it belongs.

And Happy Jesus' Birthday BTW.

Only in ignorance of the whole does one find contradiction between the parts of scripture. And the whole will always remain a mystery to those who read scripture with the intent of disbelief.

Of course you continue to demonstrate that you have ZERO concept of faith. Faith does not in any way allow one to "justify" anything, nor excuse anything. In fact it makes the faithful look more critically at their actions - to include motivations. (Does one give to the poor because of Christ's teachings, or because it is expected by society?) If you think people of faith use the Bible as a place to blame their faults on, you are even more ignorant of the principles of faith than your previous comments hinted at. Faith in God demands that we blame ourselves and only ourselves for our faults, because our faults are the direct result of turning away from the Lord.

Again, if you are going to criticize faith, try to have at least a minimal grasp of that which you criticize. Criticism based on misconceptions and lies gets you nowhere except looking like an ignorant fool.


But the point of the rebuttal to this thread is the anti-religious have no more authority to force the religious to break with their beliefs than the religious have to force the anti-religious to believe. As such, the regulation is spot on in disallowing the law to force people to take actions which are at variance with their religious beliefs. Of course, the anti-religious, while hypocritically claiming to NOT want to force their belief system on others, have no problem claiming when religion conflicts with secularism, then religion should be "left at the door". Think how you would feel if the general attitude of society were that YOU must leave your non-belief "at the door" and forced to participate in religious ceremony as society determined to be proper when anti-religious professionals deal with people of faith?


Should we force all doctors to provide treatment according to the mandates of Christian Science when dealing with Christian Scientists?

I didn't think so.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Only in ignorance of the whole does one find contradiction between the parts of scripture. And the whole will always remain a mystery to those who read scripture with the intent of disbelief.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading[/ame]

Special pleading
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

.....
* assertion that the opponent lacks the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view

Example: I know you think that I should be giving my money to the poor, but you've never been rich before. There are things about wealth that you don't understand.

* assertion that literally nobody has the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view

Example: I know the idea that ball lightning is caused by ghosts makes no sense to you, but that's only because you're human. Humans cannot understand supernatural phenomena.

......

 

[charver]

Only in ignorance of the whole does one find contradiction between the parts of scripture. And the whole will always remain a mystery to those who read scripture with the intent of disbelief.

Oh yeah, i've noticed how Christians wholeheartedly agree about the interpretation of scripture.

I wouldn't really know though 'cos i don't believe.

 

[charver]

Again, if you are going to criticize faith, try to have at least a minimal grasp of that which you criticize. Criticism based on misconceptions and lies gets you nowhere except looking like an ignorant fool.

I bet i'd look dead clever if i said i believed in a magic man, an immaculate conception and a bloke, a fair few centuries old, who put a shit load of animals on a boat when it started raining.

I can see now where i've been going wrong.

 

[Good Luck]

I bet i'd look dead clever if i said i believed in a magic man, an immaculate conception and a bloke, a fair few centuries old, who put a shit load of animals on a boat when it started raining.

I can see now where i've been going wrong.

And yet again you resort to ridicule of that which you have no hope of understanding. Typical of your kind.

 

[charver]

And yet again you resort to ridicule of that which you have no hope of understanding. Typical of your kind.

Very Christian of you to say so.

At least you have the self-satisfaction of knowing that i'll be spending the rest of eternity being poked with pointy forks, by Beelzebub and all his little wizards, while you frolic in the clouds playing frisbee with your halo.